My Beauty Best Teacher

As America descends into tyranny and communism, I am increasingly finding solace watching the gladiatorial bouts in the Coliseum- or, in modern day words, watching professional sports. The Emperor might make me pay more taxes, worship at the alter of the Green God, and increasingly control free businesses, but he can't alter the fact that there is real competition, there are winners and losers, that life isn't always fair- and you can see that by watching sports.

Incidentally, since conservatives and libertarians are usually banned from the media, a lot of them have found their way into sports commentary, and so even though this article is about sports, I think there is a larger moral in it. From the Detroit News, by John Bacon, is this article, called "Rooney Rule has been a super formula":

The Super Bowl. Just three words. One game. And the two dumbest weeks in journalism. With all the buildup, the waiting, and the unbelievably idiotic interviews, the game is almost always anticlimactic. But if you get past the hype and hysteria, there's something happening here -- and what it is, is exactly clear.

In 2002, just two of the NFL's 32 head coaches were minorities -- or 6 percent. That's higher than most industries could claim -- including college football, which has only 3 percent minority head coaches. It's a sad state of affairs when America's colleges, those bastions of open-mindedness, can't compete with the cut-throat capitalistic NFL for minority hiring. But the figures were even more embarrassing for the NFL because fully 70 percent of its players are African-American.

Well, what to do? The league considered affirmative action, but rejected it because it often stigmatizes those who get hired. So, the NFL actually engaged in some original thinking, and came up with the Rooney Rule -- named for Dan Rooney, the second-generation owner of the Pittsburgh Steelers, one of the best-run franchises in sports.

Here's how it works. Whenever a coaching position opens, that team is required to interview a minority candidate. Not hire, just interview. Yes, this does result in some token interviews. But it far more often allows good candidates to get past the old boy network, make their pitches when it matters most, and get jobs they might not otherwise have been considered for. It gives them a chance -- that's all.

It reminds me of the classic scene, 40 years ago, when Bo Schembechler first told his Michigan players he would treat them all exactly the same -- like dogs. The white guys got scared ("This guy is crazy"), while the black guys said, "Cool -- now we've got a chance."

Only one team has violated the Rooney Rule: the Detroit Lions, under former team president Matt Millen. They were fined $200,000, but were further punished when their last three coaches, all white, all bombed. Which gives us the Millen Rule, which goes like this: If you own a pro football team, never hire Matt Millen. Ever. That's the rule.

Under the Rooney Rule, minorities don't get stuck on the outside looking in, but they don't get a free pass, either. They just get their chance. After that, they're on their own. But they know that if they get the job, they got it on their merits -- and everyone else does too. In other words, the candidates get to keep their dignity, while the owners get to keep their autonomy.

It's worked out better than even Rooney had hoped. Just four years after the NFL introduced the Rooney Rule, the number of minority head coaches more than tripled, from two to seven. They've done even better on the job. Of the last six coaches to lead their teams to the Super Bowl, half have been African-Americans. That includes Tony Dungy, who won Super Bowl XXI, and Mike Tomlin, whose Pittsburgh Steelers will play Sunday.

Even if the Steelers win this weekend, Dan Rooney's six Super Bowl rings might be overshadowed by the simple rule that bears his name. The rest of the nation should take note.

Okey Ndibe writing in Sahara Reporters:

Nigeria (through Mr. Jonathan) has hardly earned the right to rebuke players who are so good they rank among the world’s best. Countries like Brazil and Argentina take their football seriously, and the state pours in resources and pursues other policies directed at the germination and nurturing of players. By contrast, Nigeria’s football administrators often have their sights set on the main chance – for themselves. Look at the line-up of players that Nigeria sent to South Africa. Can we point to a single one of those players and say, with confidence, that Nigeria’s sports administrators or sports policies fertilized his emergence or growth as a player? I doubt it. My point: each and every one of those players earned a jersey by dint of hard work and gritty determination...

More here

Madeleine Bunting in the Guardian writing about sports and its trust building potential:

...this is where football comes in. It brings people together; it builds relationships, sometimes between groups who have had reason to be suspicious of each other. It is the same principle as corporate team-building exercises. The best way for people to get to know and get on with each other is to play a game...[continue reading]

Image of Katine Actors football Photograph courtesy of Dan Chung

The rehabilitation of George W. Bush continues. After spending eight years listening to my favorite sports radio show go 'off sports' every now and then to bash Bush, I was very happy this morning to hear the solid liberals who do the show say "I had never before realized that George Bush was that funny," or "you know, he really is a decent guy," or "out of all the Presidents, he's a guy I think would be the most fun to sit down and have a beer with." The radio hosts had all watched W's interview the day before on Oprah or had seen his interview with Matt Lauer, and were being 'reintroduced' to Bush after he's been out of the political scene for a year or two, and what struck me the most was that now that Bush is no longer the 'evil enemy', myths about him are exploding left and right.

From the Washington Post, via powerlineblog, here are some other myths about President George W. Bush that are being exploded by time, analysis, research, and retrospection. Here are excerpts from the article (some editing by me for brevity), but please go here to read the whole thing:

Myth: George W. Bush was an uninformed Texas cowboy.
During his 2000 campaign against Vice President Al Gore, then-Gov. Bush went to great lengths to depict himself as a down-home Texan whom voters could relate to. But that image was at odds with his upbringing. Bush had plenty of blue in his blood. In 2004, Republicans again deployed the president's folksy image and manner of speech, contrasting Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry (the elitist who windsurfs off Nantucket) with Bush (the guy you'd rather have a beer with - even if he doesn't drink). But as the administration stumbled in crises from Katrina to Iraq, the reputation that had helped Bush win office turned into a huge liability as Americans increasingly questioned his competence.

Myth: "Compassionate conservatism" was just a campaign slogan.
Many critics dismiss Bush's talk about "compassionate conservatism" as nothing more than a cynical ploy to win over moderate voters in 2000. Liberals never believed that Bush truly wanted to bring racial and ethnic diversity to the Republican Party or that he accepted the need for the federal government to deal with entrenched social problems. The administration's bungled response to the Hurricane Katrina disaster, along with regressive fiscal policies that disproportionately benefited wealthier Americans, also seemed to contradict the promise of compassion. Yet, as Vanderbilt University historian Gary Gerstle has shown, Bush was personally invested in compassionate conservatism. Bush's experience as a born-again Christian led him to empathize with individuals' personal struggles and to respect the role of religion in civic life. As president, he insisted that the war on terrorism must not become a war against Muslims. And his signature legislative accomplishments included expansive domestic programs, such as the No Child Left Behind Act (a huge extension of the federal government into primary education) and the Medicare prescription drug benefit (the biggest expansion of the system since its creation 40 years earlier).

Myth: Bush committed America to nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan.
After the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush appeared to commit the United States to remaking enemy nations into pro-Western democracies. Yet in many ways, Bush's commitment to nation-building was primarily a rhetorical tool to build domestic support for military operations. This lack of commitment became clear when U.S. resources were hastily diverted from Afghanistan toward Iraq, and when then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld emphasized in the spring of 2002 that the Afghan people would have to handle most of the reconstruction themselves.

Myth: Dick Cheney ran the Bush White House.
The Bush era produced a stream of good books examining the vice president's hidden influence. In these accounts, Bush appears as a puppet to the real leader, Cheney, who lurked in the shadows. However, much of the subsequent writing about the Bush presidency - including works by journalists such as The Washington Post's Bob Woodward - challenges this portrait. We have begun to see instead that Bush, surrounded by political advisers such as Karl Rove, didn't allow power to move too far away from his control. And according to reports on Bush's memoir, the president even considered removing Cheney from the 2004 presidential ticket, given the vice president's "Darth Vader" reputation.

Myth: Bush left conservatism in ruins.
On election night in 2008, the conservative era appeared to be over, and the age of Obama seemed set to begin. Except it didn't happen that way. A recent poll by The Post, the Kaiser Foundation and Harvard University found that Americans dislike government more now than they did 10 years ago (though they support many specific programs). The Republican victories in the midterm elections suggest that, for all the problems that still face the GOP, conservatism is alive and well - even if it is a far different brand of conservatism than the kind Bush championed when he took office in 2001.

These myths will not die easily- a lot of people have a lot of time and money and effort invested into making us believe them, and to these people it is still important for us to believe them because if history is re-written to reflect the reality of Bush, it will have different lessons for the future. So, look for the left to fight any hint that that he is a funny, self-effacing, tad awkward, tough, honest, decent, and generally human person.

Be sure to get a copy of Bush's new book, Decision Points.

My family and all of the parents and grandparents at our school are exhausted. We've spent the better part of two weeks voting for our quarterback, Mason Worsham, to be the Albany Herald player of the year. The Albany Herald, our local paper usually has two awards. The player of the year by popular vote and another one decided by the paper's sports writers.

Washington City Paper article by Dave McKenna

Little did we know we were up against the whole Redskin Nation and the award winning sports writer Dave McKenna.

We want to win
After having a sophomore year of nail biting losses our team  has won 26 games straight in football and 2 back to back state championships.

It was like our last tribute to a fine young quarterback who we admire and appreciate. We wanted it.

You could vote once an hour for each userid you had on the system.We started giving our userids to someone who could take a shift and vote while we were asleep. We set timers. Our middle school was in DC voting on their smartphones and many of us lost sleep!

We kept trying to figure out how the other man, Chris Brown, started racking up tons of votes each minute! We didn't know how it was happening. Little did we know every time Phillip Daniels tweeted or messaged, they were getting a bump.

All we knew was we had to work harder. We called each other! We messaged! We begged our friends!

Our Wildcat Football Team, State champs

Mom called me Saturday in a panic:

"We have got to win. This is our last championship of two perfect seasons and we just have to win. What can we do?" 

Never Underestimate the Under-cat!
We wouldn't quit. We voted. We reminded people to vote. We asked our friends on Facebook to vote.

In fact, our boy ended up winning by over 900 votes. That's right,, our school with just 434 students has a support network to the point that we racked up over 10,000 votes for our player.

In the Washington City paper today: Ballot Box Shocker: Ex Redskins Vote Rigging Exercise Falls Short

Yes, it did.

We gave everything we had for over a week.

Everything but pulling in my own network of Twitter followers and blog readers.

Online polls will always be flawed
It is no secret that online polls are flawed.

Related Articles:

• Ex-Redskin Phillip Daniels Trying to Rig Prep Player Poll?
• Ballot Box Shocker: Ex-Redskins' Vote-Rigging Exercise Falls Short

From Powerlineblog's The wages of not finishing the job:

Michael Oren, Israel's stellar ambassador to the U.S., is warning that Hezbollah has amassed an arsenal of approximately 15,000 rockets in South Lebanon, near the border with Israel. That's about four times more than Hezbollah had in 2006, when it launched constant rocket attacks deep into Northern Israel. Moreover, according to Oren, Hezbollah's rockets can now reach every Israeli city, even Eliat in the South.

To make matters worse, this time Hezbollah has placed its rockets under hospitals, homes and schools. So, if Israel were to try to take the rockets out, it would face howls of protest from the "international community" including, I suspect, President Obama. Israel may well have to pay a steep price for its cautious approach to the 2006 fight against Hezbollah and for not finishing that fight.

Back in 2006 I began my attack on the MSM when I contacted the Managing Editor of the Detroit News, Dave Butler, to express my disappointment in their coverage of Israel's fight against Hezbollah in 2006. Now I know that pointing out that the MSM had a liberal bias was an exercise of pointing out the obvious, but back several years ago I was still figuring this out, and I wanted to know why the coverage was so one-sided. As I pointed out back then:

Every day there is a story about the number of Hezbollah and Lebanese civilians killed so far, and there are frequent stories in your newspaper focusing in an the specific deaths of these people, but I can not find any news reports focusing on the death count for Israeli civilians and defense forces, or a single in depth article on some poor Israeli mother who has lost her children to a Hezbollah rocket.

My point in writing was not just to point out the one-sided coverage- my fear was that by favoring a pro-terrorist organization like Hezbollah, the News would be siding with the bad guys, and everyone knows that when you side with the bad guys you always eventually lose (whether in this world or the next). In this particular case, I feared that by siding with an immoral and evil group that represents the worst in humanity readers would be driven away, which would result in less advertising revenue, which would result in cuts being made to the sports section and the comics- and I love my sports section and color comics.

In my conversation with Mr. Butler, he stressed that neither side was immoral or wrong- that this conflict was a nonpartisan affair between two combatants of equal morality, and thus he could defend his coverage of the conflict. To him, there was no difference between a terrorist non-state group launching random rockets into populated areas in Israel and Israel's response to kill those terrorists who were launching the rockets and to destroy those rockets. To him, there was no difference between a uniformed solider trying to kill an un-uniformed terrorist, and the un-uniformed terrorist who hid in schools and churches and launched his rockets from those locations. He saw nothing wrong in a free-thinking adult choosing to put women and children and the sick in harms way in order to defend himself from a retaliation attack as he launched weapons of random mass destruction (WRMD's?) at women, children, and the sick. The Managing Editor of the Detroit News thought that he was brave and fair and morally right in equating the two sides of this conflict. Clearly, he was wrong for doing so, and his paper suffered accordingly for choosing to equate evil with good and be 'unbaised and nonpartial' when covering a conflict that clearly had good guys and bad guys.

One other point- over the ensuing letters that Mr. Butler and myself exchanged several interesting points emerged, which I believe will come up again when Hezbollah once again attacks Israel and that good nation is forced to respond. The most important point that emerged is the MSM's reliance on outside sources for information- whether it be the AP or the Wire Service or something- the MSM is just like me- simply an organization that mostly takes news from other sites and filters it and rewords it and then passes it along, while doing a little bit of original reporting on the side (I do original reporting too). If conflict once again erupts in the Middle East, be careful that your news source isn't just recycling what some biased AP or Wire Service reporter wants to feed to you.

From Africa is a Country

The German shoe and sportswear company, Puma, sponsors at least 12 African national football teams–five of which qualified for the 2010 World Cup. To commemorate the World Cup year (and because it is good PR and to sell shirts), Puma commissioned artist Kehinde Wiley to create four new works of art inspired by the football stars Samuel Eto’o of Cameroon, John Mensah of Ghana and Emmanuel Eboué of Ivory Coast

via Bombastic Elements

There is one state in the United States that has continued to boom in spite of Democrat policies. Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and Peters high-tax, high-regulation policies haven't managed to take a dent out of this state's booming economy, even though they have deepened and lengthened the current US recession and damaged the economy of every state in the union except it. Truly, this state is the one state that has managed to prosper even through the mandates and controls and commissions and regulations and bureaucracy that has bogged down the rest of the United States and is destroying our economic drive.

The one state that is still booming, the one US state still growing, the one state in the United States that continues to have a booming economy: Texlahoma.

You see, Texlahoma has defied Democrats and avoided their snake-poison prescriptions for economic disaster, liberalizing their economy rather than socializing it, and championing human liberty in the face of increasing centralization, bureaucracy, and communism that marks the modern day Democratic Party.

Texlahoma cut taxes, at all levels, which led to increased revenue for the state, as predicted by the Laffer Curve. Texlahoma allows sensible energy exploration and development, letting the most environmentally friendly citizens in the world explore and develop natural resources rather than having its citizens importing them from other much-less environmentally friendly nations. Texlahoma has disbanded the public employee labor unions, since these unions are designed to correct for the corruption and abuse by private employers and are not needed when union employees work for a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Texlahoma has allowed private schools to compete for customers in their educational system, awarding each student a certain amount of dollars that will go to the school that they want to go to, and further awarding monetary bonus' for grades, sports, achievements, clubs, and many other merit-based reasons. Texlahoma does not play games with race, sex, religion, or sex, and treats everyone equally, and judges them based on their conservative character only. Texlahoma has toll roads competing with public roads, creating an efficient, vibrant, dynamic transportation grid in what were once known as 'Forgotten Counties.' Texlahoma does not have any business taxes, excise taxes, or sales taxes- only the income tax.

The people of Texlahoma are blessed with freedom and liberty. Defying the Supreme Court as much as possible, they have restricted the right to abortions and championed a lifestyle that looks to human life as the next hope of the world. They have relaxed gun control laws, everyone has a concealed weapon, and crime rates are non-existent. Cops don't harass citizens, real criminals are kept in prison, and it is a truly great place to live and work.

Sadly, Texlahoma isn't a real state. As designed by Oklahoman A. P. Sights in the early 1900's, forty-six counties in Texas and twenty-three in Oklahoma would join to form Texlahoma. People in rural places such as northern Texas and western Oklahoma were especially desperate for decent roads, but politicians in the faraway state capitals weren't listening, so the Texlahoma proposal was created. Legislators of the new state could focus on building better roadways and providing all the other services that these "forgotten" counties believed they weren't getting. "Cactus Jack" (John Nance Garner IV) championed the idea. Sadly, it never came to be, but sometimes, it is fun to imagine a state where the people still believe in the Founding Principles of our nation and practice life, liberty, and protection of property. It is a happy fantasy much different then the increasing tyranny of our current government as set up by liberal Democrats.

Some of you may not know this, but I'm a sportsman- I like to fish, hunt, camp, hike, and do a lot of things outdoors. That may surprise some of you liberals, who think that conservative Republicans must hate the environment, but I would contend that I'm more of an outdoorsman than you are. Anyways, when I came across this story at Dartblog, I had to link to it- here is the best parts of it:

As reported in the L.A. Times, the Braun Research Survey conducted a telephone poll of 1,009 sportsmen, of whom 45 percent indicated their intention to vote for McCain, with 31 percent leaning towards Obama. On a more personal level, 49 percent of sportsmen said they’d rather hunt with McCain, compared to 27 percent for Obama. The more pacific fisherman set was a more tolerant of Obama, though McCain still held the lead with 44 percent who would rather fish with him, compared to Obama’s 31 percent.

“They’re just not sure how much fun Barack Obama would be in a duck blind,” said Steve Sanetti, president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

• Sendoid - Instant, Private, P2P File Transfers

  A new private way to share files. (Hat tip Julie Lindsay.)

  tags: education p2p filesharing web2 edu_newapp

• AppleInsider | NFL's Buccaneers equip every player with an Apple iPad 2

  NFL teams go with ipads for players instead of paper and playbooks. They like the feature of being able to wipe the ipad if it goes missing (try doing that with a paper playbook.) Cool.

  tags: education sports

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

At the start of the 2011 model year, customers will look in vain for four well-known American car brands that were the victim of government policies. While many customers enjoyed these cars and many people had jobs making them, they were unable to withstand enviornmentalists who pushed for higher gas prices and arbitrary fuel standards or government bureucrats who pushed for fewer brands and smaller cars.

The push by environmentalists to make cars smaller and more fuel-efficient is based on the desire for clearner air and to fight global warming. Cleaner air is a worthy goal and speaks to the failures of firm property rights with regards to air, but global warming is a passing fad that is based on religion more so than any real science. And yet in spite of the evidence regarding global warming, the evidence that it is purely harmful, the evidence that humans are the cause of this global warming, or the evidence that government policies will have a meaningful positive effect, the government has acted and put in place 'fuel efficiency' standards that are arbitrary numbers made up by some bureaucrats. In addition to forcing car manufactures to use lighter materials which have led to increases in automobile deaths, for some car brands these government standards are too difficult or challenging to reach.

The second assault on traditional American car brands was waged by government bureaucrats who took advantage of a downswing in finances for GM and Chrysler (caused by government attacks on them through regulation, taxes, cap-and-trade, and other government policies) to seize these formerly private companies, steal the wealth and investments by private investors, and then use the power of government to transfer that power and wealth and investments to government officials and politically-connected unions. Then these government officials, most lacking experience in business in general and almost all lacking experience running automotive companies in particular, decided that these companies they had seized needed 'fewer brands' and 'smaller cars.'

But for the 2011 model year—thanks largely to the huge economic downturn that began in late 2008—four well-known American nameplates have gone the way of the Edsel, so to speak.

And so this year we say goodbye to good American brands such as Hummer, Pontiac, Mercury, and Saturn.
Via Yahoo Auto's:

Of these four, the Hummer brand was the most short-lived. The original Hummer H1 (or Hum-Vee) was a celebrity of the Persian Gulf War. In 2002 came a smaller and (slightly) more manageable version, the Hummer H2. Exactly what made suburbanites decide they needed a four-wheeled facsimile of a machine-gun toting, troop-hauling war machine parked in their driveway is best left to future generations to explain. Perhaps the supersized and fuel-guzzling excess of the Hummer brand will someday look as quaint as towering tailfins from the late-1950s? Or perhaps not.

Pontiac and Mercury always maintained a far more balanced product portfolio during their much longer life-spans. Founded in 1939, Pontiac was introduced as a companion make to prop up sales at GM’s Oakland division. Pontiac immediately outsold, and eventually far outlived, its parent brand. Oakland faded away in 1931. Pontiac’s historical highlights include the 1964 Pontiac GTO (the car that defined the muscle-car era) and the Firebird sports coupe.

Mercury was introduced in 1939, not to boost another brand’s sales, but to fill the price gap that had emerged between Ford and its upscale sibling, Lincoln. Cars like the 1949 Mercury Coupe driven by James Dean in Rebel Without a Cause all but guarantees the brand immortality – even if the nameplate itself has finally driven into the sunset. Years of badge engineering eventually dissolved Mercury’s identity, squeezing the brand out of the Ford Motor Company family tree.

Perhaps the biggest surprise – at least in terms of positive automotive karma – is the loss of Saturn. Created by GM to take the fight to imports, Saturn was marketed as “a different kind of car company,” thanks to a lineup of fuel-sipping small cars and no-haggle pricing policy. If only the cars lived up to the feel good dealership experience. A lack of development and new models left Saturn spinning out of orbit. A list ditch effort to market vehicles built by GM’s German-based Opel division as Saturns proved too little too late.

Don't know if you saw this article in the Detroit News today, but McCain apparently has given up on Michigan. I think this was the stupidest decision ever. Obama is putting two ads on TV for every one McCain one- now he doesn't have to do any. This is a final blow to McCain in Michigan- any support he had among independents evaporated with this move, as the talk radio stations and even local sports radio stations depicted McCain as abandoning the state. If he wanted to reduce advertising, fine. If he wanted to slowly draw staff out over the next week, fine. But don't do it like this. He better know what he is doing.

From the NFS website:

Nigerian Field Society (NFS) is a national organization founded in 1930 with Branches in several cities across the country. There have been active Branches in as many as 20 cities over the years bu, as the NFS is entirely a voluntary organization.The Mission of the NFS is:

• To encourage interest in and knowledge of the fauna, flora, history, legends and customs, arts and crafts, sciences, sports and pastimes of West Africa in general and Nigeria in particular;

• To support their conservation;

• To co-operate with organizations with similar interests

Image:Gurara falls

I've always been real impressed by Bill Davidson, who is the owner of the NBA team the Pistons. Because I'm a sports fan, the initial things that drew my interest were in how he runs his team- he runs his organization the right way. He hires quality people, trusts them, and when they don't perform, he lets them go nicely. The facilities he provides are top notch- the Palace of Auburn Hills is very nice.

It was through learning about the facilities that I began to be more impressed by the man. When the Lions wanted a new stadium in Detroit, they made the citizens of this state foot part of the bill. When the Tigers wanted a new stadium, they made citizens foot the bill. But Bill Davidson proudly turned down tax money, saying it wasn't right to take it. He gives millions for charities. He's a billionaire, who rescued a family company from bankruptcy and turned it successful, all without government help or bail-outs. He's the type of owner who stayed away from union labor, because he saw that the unions were not interested in the long-term health of the company or the employees.

And in an interview today, even though he is nonpartisan, he said that it is pretty clear cut that there is one candidate for President better than the other, and that is why he endorsed John McCain. I respect the man, and respect his choice.

The reason why you probably shouldn't go to the mainstream media for anything but sports editorials and the comics is because whenever it writes about anything else its amazing liberal bias shines through. Take for example a recent 'article' (not editorial) appearing in the Detroit News called Death a sure thing, taxes less so: Uncle Sam's share at 60-year low:

Taxes too high? Actually, as a share of the nation's economy, Uncle Sam's take this year will be the lowest since 1950, when the Korean War was just getting under way.

And for the third straight year, American families and businesses will pay less in federal taxes than they did under former President George W. Bush, thanks to a weak economy and a growing number of tax breaks for the wealthy and poor alike.

Income tax payments this year will be nearly 13 percent lower than they were in 2008, the last full year of the Bush presidency. Corporate taxes will be lower by a third, according to projections by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

From the way this is written, you would imagine that it is Obama and the Democrats in Congress that are to thank for lower taxes and that because of all those low taxes the Democrats provided us with taxes are now at a 60 year low. In reality, tax cuts were pushed for by Republicans over Democrats objections, and it is the Democrats that we can thank for the job-killing regulations and taxes and uncertainty that has destroyed our national economy leading to few with jobs and few companies earning money, thus lower overall revenue to the national government, thus all that 'lower share' nonsense.

Democrats still don't get the Laffer Curve- that when taxes are too high, they choke off investment and economic growth, leading to less tax revenue to the national government, leading to less revenue to spend on national defense, welfare for the truly needy, money for speculative science, and a secure social security system. It is liberals and Democrats who are pushing higher taxes and thus are creating lower revenues for the national government- under Bush and Reagan and Kennedy when they cut taxes revenue to the national government went up and this could allow the federal government to do all those wonderful things liberals want them to do.

The truth is though that liberals don't really want a government that provides for the poor, the needy, the sick, and everyone else if that means that they control your behavior less with lower taxes. Nope, liberals would trade higher taxes and the control this gives them even if the revenues that the federal government are lower as a consequence. That is the only conclusion to reach, if experience demonstrates time after time the truth behind the Laffer Curve.

The author of the article in the Detroit News demonstrates that lack of knowledge of the Laffer Curve must be pervasive in the liberal community- rather than think 'taxes and regulation and government control are higher and tax revenue is down; I want tax revenue up; perhaps we should have less taxes and regulation and government control' the author of the article pushes for more taxes and regulation and government control, and then will have to cast around for someone to blame when this shortsighted and uneducated policy doesn't work (I've been in Michigan for a while and seen Democrats desperately go through a laundry list of people to blame for the failures of their policies).
For more information on the Laffer Curve, check out Return to Prosperity: How America Can Regain Its Economic Superpower Status or The End of Prosperity: How Higher Taxes Will Doom the Economy--If We Let It Happen.

One of my brothers recently was invited by the Michigan House Republican Strategic Task Force on Education to come and discuss the long range vision of education policy in the state of Michigan. This special task force composed of Republicans has been touring the state looking for both successes and failures in Michigan's education system. It was on the west side of the state and after talking to my brother about how it went, I have the following comments to pass on to you.

What the task force does is get input from parent teacher associations, student council members, administrator, teachers, board members, and students, from public schools, special education, alternative education, charter and private schools. The end goal is to develop ideas on how to improve the quality of the education system here in Michigan.

The result of these task force meetings is predictable and an indication of everything that is wrong with education in our state. Three hours of discussion produced all the wrong policy suggestions for education, suggestions politicians should not consider. The following account is a way for you to see how policy is created in our state and helpful in developing your own opinions about the future of education.

The first step in the discussion was to answer the question "What is the purpose of education?" Do that right now in your head- think about what you want the education system in our state to look like and do. Is it prepare students for college? Prepare them for future jobs? Mold good citizens? Give all students a broad base of knowledge? Or did you, like most people at this forum, say "everything!" The mission of education needs to be focused, clear, and consistent, and it can not be everything to everybody all at the same time. There is only enough time in the day, only enough resources to spend, and our state needs to think long and hard about what they want the goal of education to be.

In my opinion, our school system should move to a two-tier system- K-8 the goal is to provide a broad range of knowledge for all students, and 9-12 students will either go into a college-prep track or a job-preparation track. That's just my opinion though.

The next question the group that came to this task force meeting was asked is "what are we doing well right now in education?" Think about this question. Education is doing a lot of things well- babysitting students 8 hours a day, running great sports programs, educating a lot of top students, running a good special needs program, helping students learn how to think, giving students opportunities, offering many innovative learning styles, and nationally our K-5 program is the best in the world.

The next question the task force had us think about was "what do you want the education system to look like 10 years from now". I think the overall consensus of the task force was that we want education to do more to teach students critical thinking skills, to learn how to be innovative and creative, to teach entrepreneurship and job creation, and to have students focus more on the career paths that they are headed into after school rather than just focus on school.

The last step is the most important step, and the step that resulted in disaster for this task force and that produced information the Michigan House Republican Strategic Task Force on Education should utterly disregard. The question that was posed to us was "how do we build on what we are doing well to make our education system look like we want it to look 10 years from now?"

Here is the information the task force received, and it is a good lesson on why sometimes special interest groups should not be the ones designing the policies in our nation. The task force was told to drop all standardized testing and to just hand the money to districts with no more accountability. The task force was told that one way to increase the education levels in our state was to give more funding to teachers, have them work shorter hours, and give them more training. The task force was told that students should teach classes, as if they were subject matter and teaching experts. The task force produced a lot of garbage ideas, and in every hearing they conducted they pretty much got the same garbage.

This is why the state should not be trusted with running any sort of service industry. The failures in education are the failures of government planning and funding. The failures of education result from this idea that bureaucrats working in distant locations can issue rules and decrees and that will somehow make things better. And the failures of education and this process demonstrate that a system that ignores values and character will produce a valueless result.

The way to fix education is to increase choice, increase personal responsibility, increase local control, and increase the focus on value and character education. Students need to take classes that emphasise creativity and entrepreneurship and they need to buy into the system by making them realize just how much it is costing them to go to school (or at least their parents need to realize what the cost is for education and then demand the results to justify the cost). Standardized testing needs to be increased, but the information that comes from these tests needs to be disseminated throughout the system and analyzed and studied by everyone- teachers, students, and administrators.

Education needs to run more like a business, with the service provided being learning and the learning delivered by skilled professionals. It can not run like a government agency, answering to dozens of constituents and staffed by bureaucrats.

Please take a moment to look up your state Representative and pass on your thoughts to them about education and the types of policies that you would like to see put in place in this state. If you don't speak up, they will have only heard from others, and those others are pushing groups like that Michigan House Republican Strategic Task Force on Education to put in place policies that will only erode the educational quality of our great state.

UPDATE: Here is a story about the event... notice the utter lack of anything productive or useful mentioned in this article.

Two years ago I exchanged emails with the managing editor of the Detroit Free Press. The topic of our discussion was the Free Press coverage of the Middle East conflict, specifically the situation where Hezbollah shot rockets into Israel and Israel responded, but as our email exchange went on, the topic widened to a larger discussion about the Detroit Free Press' bias with its reporting.

My overall point was that the Free Press was promoting only a liberal agenda in its pages, and was slanted heavily to the left, and that that would hurt the Free Press and it would have to cut service and lower its quality, and I didn't want that. Several times in our email exchange I expressed support for the Free Press and dismay that its current policies were going to lead it in the wrong direction. And I was right.

According to editorandpublisher via drudge comes this article (Top 25 Daily Newspapers in New FAS-FA) that points out over the past year that the Detroit Free Press has lost 10% of its customers. It has cut its daily delivery service, cut its comic section, cuts its sports section, and has dropped in paper and color quality. This is in no small part because of its liberal bias, and I predicted it 2 years ago.

When I confronted the editor of the Detroit Free Press with allegations of bias, he responded by rejecting my concerns and dismissing them, claiming that circulation was going up and his paper was becoming more successful. Liberal views do not usually match reality though, and the reality was that his liberal bias was in fact hurting his paper, as I alleged.

Our email exchange was telling. After I alleged bias in the Free Press news coverage, his first reply to me was to shift the blame on to the 'wire services.' He claimed that all his paper was doing was reporting the news, as it was told to them by the AP, and thus his paper had no bias. I told him that it was still his paper, and that if the AP was biased and all he did was repeat their bias, his paper would indeed be biased. I understood he was shifting blame and dodging the issue, and when I confronted him again, his reply was interesting.

He told me:

Neither side likes some of what it hears. We like what the wire services provide to us. Unlike the Internet sites, when our wire services do not make mistakes. There is no more reliable sources for information than the major wire services. You surely are free to believe anything you want to- from some kooky web site if you want- but here at the Free Press, we will stick with the wire services, regardless if you think they are biased.

He went on to justify his decision:

Circulation, by the way, is soaring, and so I don't think we need to change anything about how we run our newspaper.

I guess in retrospect I was right and he was wrong. By running his newspaper the same way, with a firm liberal bias and a reliance on liberal wire services like the AP and Reuters, the Editor of the Detroit Free Press choose to take his newspaper in the wrong direction and drive away customers. I guess I'm just confused why.

Democratic Incumbent Congressman Gary Peters flew back from Washington DC on Monday night to debate his challenger, Republican nominee Rocky Raczkowski, and the lively debate did a great job of contrasting the two opponents.

Over a series of questions on 'don't ask, don't tell', 'campaign commercials,' 'tax breaks,' 'illegal immigration,' and other issues, the two candidates contrasted their styles and hammered away at their strategies to win the upcoming election on November 2.

Gary Peters hammered at Rocky through a series of personal attacks, questioning his honesty, integrity, and motivation. He seized on jokes, mischaracterized Rocky's positions, slandered him, and frequently referred to the frivolous lawsuit by the cocaine addicted customer that provides much of the information that Peters is campaigning on. At every opportunity, he dodged his votes and his stands on issues, and promised that if you give him another two years in Congress, he will continue to work hard and make sure that he does nothing other than vote the Democratic party line. At one point he even accused his lack of production on legislation on the Republicans, who are the minority party (by large numbers) in Congress, hoping that voters wouldn't realize how lame that excuse is. Peters campaign is going to be 'Rocky is a birther, Rocky is being sued, Rocky had someone controversial at an event he was at, and Rocky is corrupt.'

Oh, I also liked when Congressman Peters said that Rocky couldn't be trusted because he was a politician and had run for office 6 or 7 times in the past. This is the kind of logic you get from a politician who has run for office 6 times and is trying to make the campaign into one of trust. Voters don't have to worry about that with Peters- we already know that Congressman Gary Peters takes the word of a cocaine-addict who has had his frivolous lawsuits dismissed already and therefore can't be trusted.
 
One other thing I'd like you to chew on from this debate. If you haven't read The Goose That Laid the Golden Eggs in a while, you should. Peters really hates Wall Street and the stock market because it's had a really bad downturn lately. He doesn't want you to put any money into those. That kind of philosophy is a good way of killing the Golden Goose.

Here in Detroit, we have been blessed to have had perhaps two of the greatest leaders in the history of hockey, maybe even in all of sports, in Steve Yzerman and Nicklas Lidstrom. The former and current captain of the Red Wings hockey team demonstrate the qualities that a good leader should have, and I believe that from them we can learn some larger lessons on leadership that we can then apply to many of our current politicians.

The words that have been used to describe the leadership qualities and skills of these two captains include: Calm, cool, collected, controlling the highs and lows, working hard, poise, humility, grace, humility, modesty, and leading through example. These two captains are not the kind that always feel the need to give speeches about their leadership; rather, they lead. And they rarely seek out awards and accolades; in fact, they both appear uncomfortable with the deserved recognition that they receive for their talents and leadership. In addition to winning numerous individual awards, they have also led the Red Wings to many Stanley Cups and have led teams that have dominated their sport for almost 20 years.

The Red Wings are currently locked in an epic battle with the San Jose Sharks in a series that I honestly wish would never end- two mighty teams locked in a titanic struggle of wills, both teams playing the game the right way, both teams giving it their all, showing the world how awesome hockey is- if this series was played for another dozen games I'd be happy! Watch Game 7 on Thursday at 9:00 pm eastern time.

Contrast the leadership of Stever Yzerman and Nicklas Lidstrom with the qualities of the current leadership in our nation, both Republican and Democrat. Would you describe Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Donald Trump, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, or John McCain as calm, cool, collected leaders? I wouldn't- although Obama sometimes appears as a icy professor, his eyes give away that behind that icy facade he is burning with a fire and passion that has driven him to success. Pelosi and Reid and Trump and Gingrich and McCain all are excitable and sometimes shrill leaders; leaders yes, but not the collected types who are under control at all times.

Whereas Yzerman and Lidstrom demonstrate poise and grace, those qualities are absent from Trump and Pelosi and McCain and Reid, who all appear to be more emotional and awkward, whether because of bad hair, shrill speaking, politically-incorrect jokes, or incoherent statements.

Yzerman and Lidstrom are modest and humble; contrast that to spotlight grabbing Obama or Palin, who both can't go a day without bragging about what they do and seeking recognition for their successes.

George W Bush had some of these qualities about him, and I think that explains his growing popularity as we move farther away from his Presidency, and Reagan and FDR and Washington all demonstrated during their presidencies these leadership traits of being cool, collected, humble, modest, graceful, and poised, and under their leadership America got better- maybe not as great as many wanted and perhaps made some mistakes along the way, but they all had the kind of Presidencies where after they were done people looked back and were okay with the direction the nation had gone.

Do any of our political leaders have these qualities and skills? Perhaps Hillary Clinton? Perhaps a Mitt Romney?

Our next President should look to these great Red Wings captains for leadership qualities and skills.

UPDATE: Via ABC News, George W Bush comments on the death of bin Laden... and does not spend an entire speech on all that he did, does not highlight all the work he did trying to catch and kill OBL, and does not try to garb himself in some sort of false populist mantle. Here is what he instead says:

Bush said Obama described in detail the secret mission to raid bin Laden's Pakistani compound and the decision he made to put the plan into motion. He told Obama, "Good call."

"The guy is dead. That is good," Bush said of bin Laden. "Osama's death is a great victory in the war on terror. He was held up as a leader."

"The intelligence services deserve a lot of credit. They built a mosaic of information, piece by piece," he said, claiming no credit for himself.

"I met SEAL Team Six in Afghanistan. They are awesome, skilled, talented and brave," he added. "I said, 'I hope you have everything you need. One guy said, 'We need your permission to go into Pakistan and kick ass.'"

Humility, grace, uncomfortable claiming credit, modest, and cool- traits that Obama would do well to emulate if he wants to be half the quality of a leader as President Bush.

Searching for Facts image from Bigstock.

Social media impacts lives. When you have someone in a controversial matter like the wrong thing or say the wrong thing it can cause a snowball that can influence and even harm.

I've seen this first hand. I know people who've lost jobs, seen marriages destroyed, and organizations teeter on the brink of nonexistence through poorly thought-out likes, unfriending, and comments. Perhaps it is because I live in a small town where there are no secrets.

It makes me angry when people who should know better casually post or comment and assume things that just aren't true. So, I'm going to get these lies out on the table. Every one of these 11 has a example  that I have personally witnessed. This is real and real life. Please wake up and understand what social media is and is not.

#11 Social media is free.
Everything comes with a price. Facebook is funded by advertising. In the advertising model they need to sell advertising and need to have happy advertisers. To have happy advertisers the advertisements need to "work" so Facebook must make sure that the ads served on their site hit the proper target. Good companies know the ages, genders, and even more details about their target market. This means that as you use Facebook you are being tracked through the use of cookies (a tiny file on your computer that stores information) and your profile data (all that data you give your "friends" also belongs to Facebook.)

Although the FTC has now required Facebook to allow users to "opt in" for Facebook privacy changes, you are giving up quite a bit of freedom as you surf, particularly when you log into Facebook. What I've seen happen to students is that if a student surfs to a somewhat inappropriate site or goes to a site that they would never go to for research projects, it can effect the kind of ads they start seeing on their page.

Ads on my Facebook page today.

So, for example, a child logs into Facebook with parents over shoulder - now the child is getting seedy ads or things showing on their page that aren't age appropriate because of some iffy searching habits from earlier in the week. Parents should notice the ads coming up on Facebook pages because it tells you a lot about your child's interests. The same is true for us adults.

The result is that the ads that show on your Facebook page tell a lot about you. Shown to the right are the ads I have on my facebook page today. First of all, I'm a coupon clipper and a Mom and I do shop online - so I have two ads relating to the fact that I shop. Another ad is for an event in Tallahassee - I do like cultural events and I live close to there. Finally, I am a bit of a health conscious person and I have recently shopped for some new vitamins online and do buy green matcha tea online. I have acupuncture atlanta showing up. See how this works?

Of particular interest is an article that will be in Forbes magazine on December 5, 2011 (Facebook's new advertising model: You) that talks about how your likes of a product will now be shown in ads for your FRIENDS. So, a movie ad may show a friend who has liked that ad. Or, a store may actually show someone who "likes" that store. Their research shows that a person is more likely to remember an ad with the name of a friend in it! I see a whole new set of privacy concerns coming with this advertising model.

Just how deeply they will dig into your shopping and buying habits or if this is just being generated off of likes is anyone's guess. Personally, I don't want my "endorsement" on anything without my permission. Just because I buy it doesn't mean I "endorse" it. I buy male sports garments for my 16 year old athlete, for goodness sakes - I could only imagine how that would turn out.


#10 Social media is just social

Jane Hart's Top 100 Tools for Learning survey results

Social media has a real impact in all areas of our life. Professional, personal, educational. In fact Twitter was listed as the top educational resource for the last two years in Jane Hart's annual poll of the top 100 tools for learning.

You may use a website socially but if you go home and make a comment about a bad day (See how to lose your job in 140 characters or less) or obnoxious client or sucky boss or give out private information and everyone knows who you're talking about you will have very real consequences in your life that can extend to your pocketbook, where you live, your job and all aspects of your life. The sooner people realize that social media is life media the better off we'll all be.

Likewise if you learn something powerful or make a connection, you can reap big dividends in your life both financially, personally, and in positive learning experiences for your students.

#9 People understand context.
Imagine kids doing a project about cyberbullying and they take a photo and upload to their Facebook to grab a screenshot and film (instead of using photoshop.) It gets uploaded in school, looks like an awful event, and everyone thinks it is really happening. The students take it down but the damage is done.

Every photo you use should be real. Be careful about using your social media sites for a "project" especially on a controversial topic. If it isn't real, don't upload it. Period. Don't experiment in places where you can do permanent damage. This is why people studying to be doctors operate on cadavers not real people as they begin.

I know a student who posted a fake status update to "see what would happen." Another student posted an April fool's joke that his house was robbed only to have the neighbors show up at their door 10 minutes after the post was made from his cell phone.

This is especially important for teachers to tell students if you allow the use of social media at your school.

#8 Profiles are accurate
People use photos from 10 years a go. They lie about their age. They may even lie about who they say they are or what they are doing for a living. Be a smidge wary when you first "meet" people particularly if you don't "know" them and decided to friend or follow because of mutual "friends." (See #2.)

I have students who are presenting at the Global Education conference who are filming an expose called "Cute little liars" where they created a fake profile and friended kids they knew to be under 13. Over half the students accepted the request. They are doing investigative reporting to uncover why.

Facebook Terms of Service

Right now, people can make fake profiles and enter fake data, but interestingly, here in the US, the Department of Justice wants to make it a federal crime to violate a website's terms of service. If that is the case, they may have to lock up half of the 10-12 year olds I know who are all lying to get a Facebook profile. (In my opinion, this is a slippery slope- who is watching those who write terms of service to make sure that they are fair to users and how many users take the time to read the TOS anyway? They are important they are just so long the average person doesn't read or understand them.)




#7 People not on that site don't see your stuff
In fact, I've seen things people posted printed out and handed around. Just because someone is not on Facebook or Twitter does not mean they cannot see your stuff. Someone can print it out or screenshot it and everyone can see it as it is handed around at the local gas station. The fact that someone is social media illiterate gives you no protection at all from their prying eyes. (See also #2.)

Reporting requires a Facebook account.

#6 You don't HAVE to have a page on their site to be treated fairly.
In fact, you do if you're going to protect your identity. I had a student here at Westwood who didn't want to get on Facebook. However, someone on Facebook with lots of pornographic links snagged her photo from a project and uploaded it as his profile picture.

She had named her picture her first name so it turned up in google search when her name was typed. Facebook would not let her report it and would not respond to her until she had a profile for a month with multiple pictures of her on it proving that she was that person in order for them to get the other person to stop using her photo. In effect, you have no right to complain about content unless you are on that site and a "real person" to them.

It says that you can have your friend report it and her friends did report it. However, they said because my student wasn't on Facebook and didn't have any photos of herself uploaded, that they couldn't verify that those photos were actually stolen from someone because she didn't exist to Facebook.

I heard an 80 year old woman call into Leo Laporte "the Tech guy" complaining that people were making things up about her on Facebook and his answer was that if she wasn't online and didn't use the Internet that there wasn't really anything she could do about it.

#5 You have a license to your work
Screen snipping software comes with every operating system I know of. It is easy to take photos. It is easy to PhotoShop off watermarks. Licenses should be respected, yes, but know that there are always pirates. It is no reason to run to the hills but remember that if you don't want it stolen that you should take some steps to protect it - especially photos of you and your children. Those are photos that you may have problems with people taking (at least I would.) I take steps to protect those photos.


Also, if you use just about any site that lets you upload photos, you may have lost the license already. For example, did you know that on Facebook according to their Terms of Service:

1. "For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it. 

2. When you delete IP content, it is deleted in a manner similar to emptying the recycle bin on a computer. However, you understand that removed content may persist in backup copies for a reasonable period of time (but will not be available to others)."

This was brought to light when a woman who shot a picture and video of a shuttle launch from the air was surprised to see her video used without permission. They had contacted Twitpic, the place she uploaded the content, an according to their terms of service if Twitpic gives permission - they can have it without contacting the user. Sites like flickr support and have licenses but remember that you may not have the license you think you have if the terms of service claim rights for the service.

#4 Your password is secure
Many people use the same password for everything. Some websites have protection measures in place and others do not. You are only secure as the least secure website you have used that password on. You should have unique passwords for banking, Facebook, and email in my opinion. So what if it is a pain. What is your identity and reputation worth?

See also Lifehacker's Guide to Sniffing Out Passwords and Cookies (and how to protect yourself against it.)  If you're not logging in using https, your password is easy to intercept. Also make sure your web browser is updated. Many sites don't support https and if they do not, your password can be easily intercepted. (One suggestion worth taking in the article is: "Everywhere is that it only redirects sites in its list, so if you'd like to be able to redirect any site to HTTPS, you may want to check out Force-TLS for Firefox or HTTPS Everywhere for Chrome. Both of these extensions allow you to add new sites to the automatic HTTPS redirect.")

#3 Delete will delete something
Delete doesn't really happen. Some companies (like Facebook) keep the original photo and just delete the link to your account. The permalink is still there. Plus you have the fact that files when deleted are still there - either in the recycle bin on on that hard drive or on a backup. Someone on this planet can always get to it.

Friends photo from Bigstock

#2 Your friends are really friends
Just because Facebook calls them friends doesn't mean that they are. If you tick the wrong person off, they'll screenshot your "private" rant faster than you can open and shut your back door.

A companion to this statement is that "your friends friends are really their friends." Overfriending is a problem and many people got online and started friending. Although they may be more selective now, people tend to not want to unfriend people. Just because you have mutual friends doesn't mean a thing. If you accept on the basis of "mutual friends" you are leaving your vetting up to people who just may not care or were uneducated at some point about how to friend.

#1 You have privacy settings
Yes, you can "lock down" your account, but truly nothing is really private. If anyone besides you is on your page, you still have all those anonymous administrators or hackers who can get to your account through the back door or a security hole. Sure, set your private settings and "lock it down" but remember that if you don't want it shared that you shouldn't share it.

Plus, it is easy to cross post from one platform to another. You may have protected tweets on Twitter but if you cross post to Facebook and are set to Friends of Friends EVERYONE can read your tweets.

Nothing is private if it is online.

Why use social media at all?
All this being said, I am a huge social media fan. My life has been improved by social media. I have received book contracts, new friends from around the world, new best practices for my classroom, and trips to incredible places. Social media has been a very positive influence in my life. I've had my own share of gaffe's and mess ups -- that is a fact!

But I think it is time to wake up and realize that this stuff is for real and that offhand comments can crush and hurt people.

Be careful what you say especially when it is in writing or electronic format. A like can have just as much impact as if you said it yourself. Like means you agree in the eyes of many because of the word that Facebook chose to use.